The Total Garage Store, LLC. v. Nicholas C. Moody
This appeal concerns a noncompetition agreement. The Total Garage Store, LLC (“TGS”) sued former employee Nicholas C. Moody (“Moody”) in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). TGS alleged that Moody violated his noncompetition agreement (“the Agreement”). At the end of a hearing on TGS’s motion for a temporary injunction held 35 days after suit was filed, the Trial Court invoked Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.04(7) to declare that the hearing was on the merits of the case, not just the injunction. The Trial Court found the Agreement enforceable and entered an injunction order. Later, TGS filed a motion for contempt against Moody alleging that he violated the order. After a hearing, the Trial Court found Moody guilty of six counts of criminal contempt. The Trial Court also awarded damages to TGS. Moody appeals. Because the record does not reflect that Moody received adequate notice that the injunction hearing also would be on the merits, we vacate the Trial Court’s judgment as it pertains to Moody’s alleged violation of the Agreement. However, this does not and did not entitle Moody to ignore the temporary injunction, and we affirm the Trial Court in its finding Moody guilty of criminal contempt. We therefore affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, the Trial Court’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Mini Systems, Inc. v. Marvin Alexander, et al.
This case arises from a breach of contract dispute involving the construction of two storage buildings. Among other issues is whether Appellee’s actions were “unfair or deceptive” pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court ultimately found that there was a breach of contract, but that Appellee’s actions were not deceptive and dismissed the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Lundell v. Lois Hubbs Et Al.
In this negligence action arising from the plaintiff’s injuries sustained while attempting to traverse the aisle of a moving school bus, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment following a determination that (1) the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendants had breached any duty of care to the plaintiff and (2) alternatively, any reasonable fact-finder could only conclude that the plaintiff was at least fifty percent (50%) at fault for her injuries. In so finding, the trial court declined to consider the plaintiff’s captioned “Declaration” in part because it failed to meet the affidavit requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.06. In filing her “Declaration” in support of her opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff sought to amend her prior deposition testimony concerning the location of her fall. The trial court additionally denied the plaintiff’s “Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted” after the plaintiff averred that the defendants had failed to respond to the plaintiff’s initial requests for admission for over five-hundred days. The plaintiff has appealed. Having determined that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the defendants’ breach of duty of care and comparative fault, we reverse the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s “Declaration” should not be considered. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s “Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted.” |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Malachi M.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a father to a minor child. The trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate the father’s rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent and that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision to terminate the father’s parental rights and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
James Howell v. Lee R. Morisy, M.D., et al.
In this Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 interlocutory appeal, we address whether the trial court erred in applying Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) 1.7 in determining whether Appellants’ law firm had a concurrent conflict of interest. Because a law firm may not cure a concurrent conflict by withdrawing from representing a client to avoid a conflict of interest with another client, we conclude that the trial court properly applied RPC 1.7. We also conclude that the trial court properly considered alternatives to disqualification. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gloria J. Jones v. Justin Martin, et al.
Appellant and her son were driver and passenger, respectively, in a motor vehicle when they were struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by one of the Appellees. Appellant’s son later died from medical causes not related to the accident. Appellant then filed suit for injuries in her own name and as next of kin of her deceased son. Following arguments by the Appellees that Appellant had no authority to prosecute the case on behalf of her son, the trial court dismissed the claim corresponding to the injuries allegedly sustained by the son. Appellant then took a nonsuit of her remaining claim. This appeal concerns initially whether or not the judgment on appeal is a final judgment and, if so, the application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102 to this case. Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102, which provides for the survival of actions despite the death of the person wronged, specifies that the right of action shall pass “in like manner as the right of action described in § 20-5-106.” By way of that referenced authority, it is clear that a next of kin is one of the persons authorized to bring an action that survives under section 20-5-102. For the reasons set out herein, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal and reverse the trial court’s dismissal. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Craig Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al.
Appellant was injured in an accident involving a vehicle owned by Lexus of Memphis and insured under a policy issued by Appellee insurance company. The at-fault driver entered into a rental agreement with Lexus of Memphis for use of the subject vehicle. After a jury entered a verdict in favor of Appellant against the at-fault driver, Appellant sought to collect the judgment under a policy issued by Appellee. The trial court held that the at-fault driver, as a renter of the vehicle, was exempt from coverage under the policy. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Doe Ex Rel. Jane Doe v. Brentwood Academy, Inc. Et Al.
In this consolidated appeal, we review whether the trial court erred in holding appellants’ attorney in civil contempt and/or in assessing fees and costs after this Court, in a previous appeal, reversed the trial court’s grant of appellees’ motion for involuntary dismissal and mandated for entry of an order granting appellants’ motion for voluntary dismissal. We conclude that there was no contempt and that the fees assessed for contempt were unwarranted. Because the underlying lawsuit was voluntarily nonsuited, we pretermit appellants’ issue concerning whether the trial court erred in denying recusal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald L. Jones v. Louise Helms, et al.
In this case, a sister contests the sale of her deceased brother’s interest in real estate they inherited from their mother to satisfy an outstanding judgment lien against the brother. Because the sister waives her right to appellate review of most of her arguments and we discern no error in the circuit court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm the circuit court. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa Janelle Jones v. Charles Jason Jones
A husband sought relief from a final decree of divorce nine years after its entry. He argued that the decree was void because the trial court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the husband’s motion. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Rachel Beth Gray v. Allan Vincent Daugherty, Jr.
This is an appeal of a judgment entered against Father for child support arrearage. The State of Tennessee, on behalf of Mother, sought a modification of the judgment against Father under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure due to an alleged erroneous calculation of child support owed by Father. The trial court granted the State’s motion, increasing the amount of the arrearage judgment owed by Father. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the State relief under Rule 60.02. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
TBF Financial LLC v. Jonathan Simmons
Appellant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion for relief from a judgment entered against him in the Knox County General Sessions Court. Appellant’s Rule 60.02 motion was filed approximately 8 years after the judgment was entered, and the trial court held that it lacked jurisdiction based on the expiration of the 10-day time period set out in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 16-15- 727(b). Appellant’s motion was premised on his contention that he was never served with process in the general sessions court and, as such, the judgment was void ab initio. We conclude that the 10-day statutory time period does not preclude the trial court’s jurisdiction to address Rule 60.02 motions based on a void judgment. However, we do not reach the ultimate question of whether Appellant is entitled to such relief because there is a dispute of fact regarding whether proper service was achieved. This dispute must be resolved by the trial court in order to determine whether Rule 60.02(3) relief is warranted. Vacated and remanded. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Dyllon M. Et Al.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor children on the grounds of: (1) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g)(2); (2) mental incompetence, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8); and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the children, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g)(14). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interests. We reverse the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on all remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Rocky Joe Houston v. Pat Brown
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order setting aside his transfer of real property as a fraudulent conveyance. We do not reach the substantive issue because Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Dismissed. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Haskel S.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental right to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by willful failure to visit, willful failure to support, and wanton disregard, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); (2) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2); and (3) failure to manifest a willingness and ability to parent the child, Tenn. Code Ann. |
Van Buren | Court of Appeals | |
Xingkui Guo v. Jon David Rogers
This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because there is no evidence of bias that would require recusal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Rental v. Mark B. Sagers, Et Al.
This appeal arises out of a dispute concerning an express, ingress and egress easement across the defendant’s property. The principal issue is whether the plaintiff abandoned the easement by failing to maintain the easement in a condition permitting it to be used for access and/or by acquiescing in the acts of others that reduced the utility of the easement. Following a bench trial, the court determined the defendant failed to prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. Having determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings by the trial court, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Cooper, Et Al. v. Dr. Mason Wesley Mandy, Et Al.
The principal issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether intentional misrepresentations made by health care providers to induce a prospective patient to engage the health care providers’ services are within the purview of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (“the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 to -122. The complaint filed by the patient, Donna Cooper (“Mrs. Cooper”), and her husband alleges that Dr. Mason Wesley Mandy (“Dr. Mandy”) and Rachelle Norris (“Ms. Norris”) with NuBody Concepts, LLC, intentionally misrepresented that Dr. Mandy was a board-certified plastic surgeon and, based on their misrepresentation, Mrs. Cooper gave Dr. Mandy her consent to perform the surgery. Following “painful, disastrous results,” the plaintiffs asserted four claims: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) medical battery; (3) civil conspiracy; and (4) loss of consortium. Defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the presuit notice and filing requirements of the Act, specifically Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121 and -122. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the Act did not apply. This interlocutory appeal followed. We hold that Mrs. Cooper is entitled to proceed on her claims of intentional misrepresentation and civil conspiracy because the alleged misrepresentations were inducements made prior to the existence of a patient-physician relationship; thus, the claims were not related to “the provision of . . . health care services.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101(a)(1). We also affirm its ruling on the medical battery claim because a physician’s misrepresentation of a material fact, if proven, may vitiate consent, and, without consent, the very act of touching Mrs. Cooper may constitute an unlawful and offensive act that is not related to the provision of health care services. See Holt v. Alexander, No. W2003-02541-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 94370, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2005). Further, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on Mr. Cooper’s claim for loss of consortium because, as the trial court held, his claims relate to Dr. Mandy’s and Ms. Norris’s false representations of Dr. Mandy’s credentials, not to a provision of, or a failure to provide, a health care service. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Clarence Hight, Et Al. v. Donald Ryan Tramel, Et Al.
This case involves an attempt by a former shareholder of a corporation to bring suit on behalf of the corporation on the basis of a contractual assignment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that there was no valid assignment of the corporation’s rights and that any individual claims asserted by the former shareholder were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The former shareholder appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wayne C. Lance v. Alcoa Hotel Hospitatlity, LLC
The plaintiff instituted this action to recover payments allegedly due under an agreement to sell his membership interest in a corporation. Following a bench trial, the trial court agreed with the defendant corporation’s contention that the “additional consideration” provision of the agreement was void and unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration. The trial court determined that the corporation received no consideration in exchange for its promise to make annual payments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed. Upon thorough review, we conclude that sufficient consideration supported the agreement, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment in that regard. The balance of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Capital Partners Network OT, Inc. v. TNG Contractors, LLC, Et Al.
Defendants appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff corporation, the effect of which was to accord full faith and credit to a New York judgment based on a confession of judgment, or cognovit note. Defendants argue that the foreign judgment should not be enrolled in Tennessee because it is contrary to public policy, based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 25-2-101(a), which prohibits the use of prelitigation confessions of judgment and declares void any judgment based upon such a device. After reviewing the record and case law, we hold that the Constitution’s full faith and credit mandate requires enrollment of the foreign judgment so long as Defendants validly waived their due process rights. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brooklyn R.
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate a father’s parental rights based on abandonment by failure to support; abandonment by failure to visit; abandonment by wanton disregard; substantial noncompliance with permanency plans; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The trial court granted the petition, finding that the Department proved the alleged grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that terminating the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The father appeals the trial court’s conclusion that terminating his parental rights is in the best interests of the child. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Livingston v. Gregory Livingston
Following a public reprimand of the trial judge presiding over her divorce, Wife filed a motion to recuse the trial judge pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The trial court denied the motion, and Wife appealed to this Court. Thereafter, the presiding judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District entered an order transferring the case to another judge in order to “equitably distribute the case load[.]” Wife then filed a notice in this Court seeking direction as to whether the appeal is moot. Following our review, we dismiss this appeal as moot. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Eric Wayne Barton v. Mechelle Schlomer Barton
In this appeal arising out of the parties’ divorce, the Husband raises issues pertaining to the court’s classification, valuation, and division of the marital estate, as well as the court’s award of attorney’s fees to Wife. Upon our review, we vacate those parts of the judgment that awarded a lien on real property belonging to LLCs in which Husband had 100 percent ownership interest as well as an award to Wife of an interest in a contingent contractual claim against the United States Government that is an asset of an LLC in which Husband had 100 percent ownership interest. Additionally, in light of this Court’s determination that the contractual claim is an asset of an LLC owned 100 percent by Husband, we conclude that the record requires the court to reconsider the valuation of the parties’ business interests in the LLC that has the contractual claim. Although the trial court must necessarily consider the impact that the contractual claim has on the parties’ net marital business interests, we note that the court’s current calculations, which are divorced from a proper consideration of the impact of the contractual claim, overvalued the net marital business interests based upon its own findings. In light of the fact that the case is being remanded for further consideration of the valuation of the parties’ net marital business interests, we also vacate the trial court’s equitable division of the estate and its award of attorney’s fees to Wife and remand for further consideration. We also decline to award Wife her attorney’s fees on appeal. The balance of the judgment is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Hugh A. Niceley v. Tennessee Department Of Correction
This appeal arises from the summary dismissal of an inmate’s petition for declaratory judgment on the calculation of his sentence expiration date. The inmate contended that each of his consecutive sentences should have begun automatically upon the expiration of the prior sentence’s period of ineligibility for release. The trial court found the material facts were undisputed and concluded that the Tennessee Department of Correction correctly calculated the sentences. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
